Doe v. Coe

• Citation: 2019 IL 123521,135 N.E.3d 1,434 Ill.Dec. 117
• Decision Date: 23 May 2019
• Docket Number: Docket No. 123521
• Parties: Jane DOE et al., Appellees, v. Chad COE et al. (First Congregational Church of Dundee, Illinois et al., Appellants).
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

2019 IL 123521

135 N.E.3d 1

434 Ill.Dec. 117

Jane DOE et al., Appellees,

v.Chad COE et al. (First Congregational Church of Dundee, Illinois et al., Appellants).

Docket No. 123521

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed May 23, 2019

Michael Resis and Mari Ann Novy, of SmithAmundsen LLC, of Chicago, for appellants.

Kevin M. Lyons and Stephanie Kopalski, of Lyons Law Group, LLC, of Downers Grove, and Francis C. Lipuma, of Chicago, for appellees.

Stanley L. Tucker and Carissa A. Bryant, of Tucker Hartzell and Bryant, of Carthage, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Jane Doe and her parents, brought suit against two individuals and several entities including and affiliated with the United Church of Christ (UCC) after Jane was sexually assaulted by a youth pastor. Relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs alleged that the First Congregational Church of Dundee (FCCD) and its pastor, Aaron James, negligently and willfully and wantonly hired, supervised, and retained FCCD's director of youth ministries, Chad Coe.

¶ 2 Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice. All counts of the second amended complaint were dismissed under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2014) ) as against FCCD and James. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. We granted FCCD and James's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315 (eff. Apr. 1, 2018). In this case, we are called on to decide whether plaintiffs have adequately pled their causes of action against FCCD and James, as well as whether the circuit court properly struck certain allegations from the complaint.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in the Kane County circuit court in August 2015. They alleged various claims against Coe, James, and FCCD, as well as the Fox Valley Association of the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ, the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Christ, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, and the United Church of Christ Board (UCC defendants). FCCD and James moved to dismiss the counts against them, and the circuit court granted the motion pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code as to FCCD and section 2-619.1 of the Code as to James ( 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619.1 (West 2014)). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging four counts—negligent supervision, negligent retention, willful and wanton failure to protect, and willful and wanton retention and failure to supervise—against both FCCD and James, with another count—negligent hiring—against FCCD alone. FCCD and James moved again to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code (id. § 2-615 ). FCCD and James also moved alternatively to strike certain paragraphs as irrelevant or cumulative, also under section 2-615 (id. ).

¶ 5 The circuit court agreed with FCCD and James that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action and dismissed the counts against them. The court found that nothing in the complaint indicated that either FCCD or James knew or should have known of Coe's misconduct prior to his assault of Jane. Regarding the negligent hiring count against FCCD, it found that plaintiffs' allegation that an online search would have revealed Coe's activity on pornographic websites was not plausible because Coe used a pseudonym.

¶ 6 The court denied plaintiffs leave to replead the willful and wanton counts against FCCD or any of the counts against James. It reasoned that there was little chance that plaintiffs would be able to plead the willful and wanton counts, which alleged aggravated forms of negligence, if they failed to plead simple negligence after two attempts. Further, it held, although James's acts and omissions as an agent of FCCD may form the basis for FCCD's liability, James himself was not personally liable. The court also granted in its entirety FCCD and James's motion to strike irrelevant or cumulative paragraphs from the complaint. The court allowed plaintiffs to replead the negligence claims against FCCD and, after reconsidering, against James.

¶ 7 The UCC defendants are not part of this appeal. The court also dismissed the claims against them, and that appeal proceeded separately. See Doe v. Coe , 2017 IL App (2d) 160875, 416 Ill.Dec. 114, 83 N.E.3d 612. Coe is also not part of this appeal.

¶ 8 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint

¶ 9 Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, including the allegations stricken from the first amended complaint realleged and preserved, is the subject of this appeal. In it, plaintiffs alleged 22 counts against Coe, FCCD, James, and the UCC defendants. Counts I through VII are against Coe. Counts XVII through XXII are against the UCC defendants.

¶ 10 Against James, plaintiffs alleged counts VIII (negligent supervision), IX (negligent retention), X (willful and wanton failure to protect), and XI (willful and wanton retention and failure to supervise). Against FCCD, plaintiffs alleged counts XII (negligent hiring), XIII (negligent supervision), XIV (negligent retention), XV (willful and wanton failure to protect), and XVI (willful and wanton retention and failure to supervise). These counts are at issue in this appeal.

¶ 11 Because this appeal resulted from a section 2-615 dismissal, the summary of facts is drawn from plaintiffs' second amended complaint. This appeal concerns whether certain allegations were properly stricken from plaintiffs' first amended complaint and whether plaintiffs have adequately pled that FCCD and James acted negligently or willfully and wantonly in hiring, supervising, and retaining Coe.

¶ 12 Plaintiffs' second amended complaint was 564 paragraphs, including those stricken and reserved against the UCC defendants. The appellate decision below quoted a good number of the allegations from the complaint. 2018 IL App (2d) 170435, ¶ 43, 422 Ill.Dec. 304, 103 N.E.3d 436. We summarize them to the extent they are relevant to our decision.

¶ 13 Plaintiffs alleged that FCCD and James were bound to follow a recommended "Safe Church Policy," which was provided to UCC local churches. The complaint defined the term "Inappropriate" as "Inappropriate Content, Inappropriate Displays of Affection, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Exploitation, as defined by UCC policies and materials, as well as conduct or materials defined by Illinois law to be Grooming, Sex Offenses, Harmful to Minors, Obscene, Adult Obscenity or Child Pornography Internet Site." Plaintiffs further alleged that Coe was under the direct supervision of James, who was under the direct supervision and employ of FCCD; that no background check was completed on Coe when he was hired or at any time thereafter; that Coe's office was near James's and that James and other adults were often present when Coe was working; and that Coe used the same pseudonym, "BluesGod88," to "friend" youth and adult members of the church on social media sites and to post obscene photos of himself on pornographic websites. They alleged that the pseudonym "BluesGod88" could be associated with Coe's name by way of a simple Google search and that he used the same pseudonym on child pornography websites.

¶ 14 Plaintiffs further alleged that Coe habitually engaged in inappropriate behavior such as permitting underage girls to sit on his lap, tickling them, and touching their buttocks. They alleged that Coe showed youth group members pornographic videos. Coe was often the only adult present during this inappropriate behavior, and he habitually isolated young girls. On June 14, 2013, in a middle school classroom in the basement of the church, Coe had sex with Jane on a couch. Jane was 15 and Coe 31.

¶ 15 Plaintiffs alleged that James was the direct supervisor of all FCCD employees and volunteers, that he was a mandatory reporter under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act ( 325 ILCS 5/4 (West 2012) ), and that he was aware or should have been aware of the Safe Church policy and UCC recommendations for minor-to-adult online relationships and communications. James was either trained to recognize the type of interactions between adults and children that create dangerous situations for the children or was not trained and should have been. James was present at the church during normal working hours and at youth group meetings from time to time such that he knew or should have known that Coe's interactions with youth, including Jane, were inappropriate. Plaintiffs made all of the same allegations regarding training and knowledge against FCCD.

¶ 16 Plaintiffs further alleged that FCCD employees, volunteers, and members were present to witness Coe's inappropriate attention, behavior, or physical contact with minor members of the youth group, including Jane. Multiple people found that behavior unsettling or received information from children in the group that the behavior made the children uncomfortable. Employees, volunteers, or members discussed among themselves Coe's inappropriate behavior with Jane. At least one employee, volunteer, or member confronted Coe about his behavior, and the behavior was reported to James in late 2012 and 2013. On at least three occasions, James walked into Coe's office while Coe was in the office alone with Jane and left them alone together, despite his knowledge that the Safe Church Policy directed that at least two adults be present with children. In June 2013, a vacation bible school volunteer, who was an early childhood education professional, recognized the interaction between Coe and Jane as inappropriate after witnessing them together for less than two days and called James to report the inappropriate conduct. She subsequently discussed the conduct again with James in a meeting. At no point did James take any action to further investigate, report to DCFS, communicate with Jane's parents, or restrict Coe's...